Anonymous posting is only appropriate when you are revealing sensitive employment related information about a firm, job, etc. You may anonymously respond on topic to these threads. Unacceptable uses include: harassing another user, joking around, testing the feature, or other things that are more appropriate in the lounge.

It has been pointed out that it is probably useful if people:a) Share bid lists/where people missed out on firms when interviewing schedules are released; andb) Include GPA and office location in posts announcing callbacks.

3) Based on what I've seen on here, I'm pretty sure that they just look at averages, and won't start figuring out what your average would be with or without the bad grade. I know you kind of want to hear that the bad one will be written off as an aberration, but I don't think that's how it works; on the other hand, it won't be unproportionally counted against you either, so there's that. You will be considered with all the other just-below-178s. I don't think the 178 number is a hard cutoff, but it's getting into "risky bidding" territory for the grade-conscious firms. I don't know what "terrible" means, but if it's like a 174 or something I wouldn't worry about it. If you got Hammered with a 168 or the like, I would probably come up with a story for OCI just in case the interviewer isn't familiar with the legend.

Is it reasonable to shoot for Kirkland/Sidley/Mayer/Skadden Chicago with a 178.4, decent WE, a 1L SA, and not diverse? Or are those wasted bids? I'd say that I'm a solid interviewer with a demonstrable interest in certain practice areas.

Anonymous User wrote:Is it reasonable to shoot for Kirkland/Sidley/Mayer/Skadden Chicago with a 178.4, decent WE, a 1L SA, and not diverse? Or are those wasted bids? I'd say that I'm a solid interviewer with a demonstrable interest in certain practice areas.

You're above the cutoff and have a good background. Why would you think they are wasted bids?

Anonymous User wrote:You really think you need a 178 for Sidley/Kirkland? The OCI grades sheet is pretty consistently saying both hire at least down to a bit below 177..

That's why he wanted the K-JD info, WE, diversity, etc. I think it's safest to conservatively assume the person in the past who set the low bar for CBs or offers tends to have solid WE or diversity on their side. It's entirely possible that ~178 is the sweet spot for Sidley and Kirkland for people with an average resume.

I really doubt it's a wasted bid though. There are so few SA slots in Chicago, that not bidding those 2 would be unwise until you are like below 176.5 or so imo.

177.3 - 177.7. Only interested in NY/Philly (the latter being mostly mass-mailed). No post-college work experience but probably more in college than most. Can tell a quasi-convincing transactional story (solid 1L experience in this regard as well), and want to practice transactional law.

Clearly Wachtell/CSM/Sullcrom are out, and DPW is probably not worth pushing other firms out of the way for, despite being reportedly "fit-focused." Any other firms in NY out of my league grade-wise? Thanks.